G.R. No. 175887 ; November 24, 2010
HEIRS OF THE LATE NESTOR TRIA, Petitioners, vs. ATTY. EPIFANIA OBIAS, Respondent.

FACTS

Engr. Nestor Tria, a DPWH Regional Director, was shot and killed at Pili Airport on May 22, 1998. An NBI investigation, based on witness statements and evidence, identified Roberto Aclan and Juanito Ona as the gunman and accomplice, respectively. The NBI also recommended the indictment of Atty. Epifania Obias for murder. The investigation revealed that Aclan and Ona had conducted surveillance on Tria prior to the shooting. Crucially, Atty. Obias was the last person seen conversing with Tria immediately before he was shot. She also admitted being with Aclan earlier that morning and had brokered a real estate transaction for the Tria family, for which she had received full payment but had failed to deliver the deed of sale despite demands after Tria’s death.
The Provincial Prosecutor initially filed a murder case against all three. However, the Secretary of Justice reversed this and directed the withdrawal of the information against Atty. Obias, finding insufficient evidence of conspiracy. The petitioners, Tria’s heirs, appealed to the Office of the President (OP), which dismissed their appeal. They then filed a petition for mandamus/certiorari with the Court of Appeals to compel the OP to resolve their appeal on the merits, but the CA denied the petition.

ISSUE

Whether the Court of Appeals erred in denying the petition for mandamus/certiorari, thereby upholding the dismissal of the murder charge against Atty. Obias by the Office of the President.

RULING

The Supreme Court denied the petition and affirmed the CA’s decision. The Court held that the determination of probable cause for filing a criminal case is an executive function, primarily vested in the prosecutor and subject to review by the Secretary of Justice. The Court’s role is limited to reviewing grave abuse of discretion in this executive function. The Secretary of Justice found no probable cause against Atty. Obias, concluding that her presence at the crime scene and her prior business dealings with the victim, without more, did not establish conspiracy to commit murder. The OP’s dismissal of the appeal was based on this finding and the principle of exhaustion of administrative remedies, as the petitioners should have first sought reconsideration from the OP before resorting to judicial action. The CA correctly found no grave abuse of discretion in the OP’s ruling. The Court emphasized that it cannot substitute its own judgment for that of the prosecuting arm of the government in the absence of a clear showing of arbitrariness.